Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To Accused On Account Of Non-Compliance Of Section 41B Of CrPC
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to two accused persons on the ground of non-compliance of Section 41B of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay observed, “… upon careful consideration of the judgments cited and the well-settled legal position that the provisions of Section 41B of the Code of Criminal Procedure have to be complied with and that there cannot be any discrepancy inherent in the seizure list in order to raise a proper presumption under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to bail.”
The petitioners had filed an application for bail in connection with the offence under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
Advocates Hillol Saha Podder and Mousumi Das represented the petitioners while Advocate Aditi Shankar Chakraborty represented the State.
In this case, the counsel for the petitioners pointed out that there were several crucial discrepancies in the documents of seizure and that Section 41B of the CrPC was not complied with. It was further submitted that no independent witness’s signature was taken on the seizure list and the time of arrest was much prior to midnight.
On the other hand, the counsel for the State submitted that the complaint, on the basis of which the F.I.R. was registered, clearly indicated that the raiding party went along with a portable printer and investigation kits, which itself indicates that the mere fact of the seizure list being a computer printout cannot be held to be suspect.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of both the counsel said, “Accordingly, CRM (NDPS) No. 448 of 2022 is allowed, thereby granting bail to the petitioners on condition that the petitioners shall individually furnish bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each, with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special Court, (under NDPS Act), Cooch Behar. The sureties may be common for both the petitioners.”
The Court further directed that the petitioners shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court during the entire period of trial and shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case so as to dissuade such a person from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the plea and granted bail to the accused.
Cause Title- Md. Mirmoizuddin Rahaman @ Md. Maijuddin Rahaman @ Babu and another v. State